1 2026:CGHC:4299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 762 of 2026 1 - Pritam Suryavanshi S/o Late Moti Lal Aged About 33 Years R/o Dhodhipara, Korba Tehsil And District - Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Divisional Office, R.K. Nagar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam, Saket Bhawan, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 27 /01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.5/Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Korba. 10. 2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Peon with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's pending salary from 12.01.2025 onwards, along with interest at an appropriate rate for the delay. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the petitioner's appointment order dated 08.01.2025 as valid and subsisting under the Unified Revised Guidelines-2013. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award costs of the petition in favor of the petitioner. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner while serving as Peon with the Respondent No. 5/Municipal Corporation died-in-harness on 18.01.2015. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 16.02.2015 within a period of 01 month of the said demise of this father. The Respondent No. 5/Municipal Corporation after considering the application as also the relevant circulars and the directives issued by the State Government in this regard has granted compassionate appointment on the post of Peon vide order dated 08.01.2025. Petitioner joined his services pursuant to the appointment order and was discharging his duties diligently to the satisfaction of the authorities. Surprisingly, the petitioner thereafter was served with an order dated 19.09.2025 canceling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the Respondent No. 5/Corporation has not sought prior approval from the Respondent No. 2. 3 3. He contended that the order of cancellation of appointment dated 19.09.2025 is subject matter under challenge in this writ petition. He submits that the identical issue is considered and decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 12389/2025 between ‘Jaichand Sarthi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.’ wherein, the petitioner in the writ petitioner therein was given compassionate appointment along with the present petitioner and the date of cancellation of the appointment is also one and same. Case of petitioner is squarely covered with the decision on the case of Jaichand Sarthi (Supra). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents do not oppose the submission of counsel for petitioner that the issue involved in this case is already considered and decided in the case of Jaichand Sarthi (Supra) as also, the submission that the case of petitioner is covered with the aforementioned judgement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the case of Jaichand Sarthi (Supra) has observed as under:- “3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, has filed his affidavit wherein it is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 07.10.2017. The Commissioner had addressed letters to the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bilaspur on 15.12.2019, 09.07.2021, 14.07.2021, 07.08.2023, 05.02.2024, and 09.09.2024, informing him about the pending cases of compassionate appointment, including the petitioner's case, which remained pending due to non-availability of vacancies. On 12.02.2025, the Commissioner again furnished information regarding the pending cases for the last five years, wherein the petitioner's name was also included. Subsequently, on 31.12.2024, certain new posts were created, and based on the availability of vacancies, the petitioner was issued an appointment order dated 08.01.2025 for the post of Peon. After issuing the appointment order, the Commissioner forwarded the petitioner's case to the State Government for confirmation. However, as the State Government did not accord approval, the 4 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, cancelled the petitioner's appointment vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2025. 4. This Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 directed the Director, Urban Administration and Development to file affidavit. In pursuance of the direction, the Director has filed affidavit wherein he has stated in paragraph 7 and 8 as under:- 7. The Urban Administration and Development Department received a total of 96 cases of compassionate appointments from urban bodies, ranging from 3 to 5 years in duration. These cases were examined and forwarded to the Administration Department. Later, after approval from the General Administration Department, 29 cases were approved. 8. For No. post-facto approval, letter Establishment/01/CompassionateAppointment/2025/ 14931 dated 08.01.2025, was received from the Municipal Corporation, Korba. There is no provision for post-facto approval in the General Administration Department's circular dated 14.06.2013. Head of the Department is not the competent authority to grant such approval. The competent authority for compassionate appointment is the concerned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation.. 5. From a bare perusal of the affidavit, it is evident that the Director has assigned no reason whatsoever for denying approval. Such absence of reasoning reflects arbitrariness and highhandedness on the part of the authorities, which has the effect of defeating the lawful claim accrued in favour of the petitioner. 6. It is a well-settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. This Court cannot add or subtract any words into the policy so as to disturb its harmonious construction. As such, the petitioner's case is required to be examined only in accordance with the Policy dated 14.06.2013 of which Clauses 15(4) and 16 provide as under:- 15.4 प  अ क    क ए कई प क सद   प स !" क# $ख & दश क( स)च  +,-. क# क अ द/ 0ए,1 ए स "1 प क( $प प क 2ख क द/ 0,1। 16. अ क    क ए स स1 स4 प56  अ क    क ए अ!"क अ!" 3 7# ,1 8 श7 प56   अ!" 5 7# ,1 क , इसक ए औच; ए कण दश# =ए $शसक( +, क - स स4 $शस +, क( अ  $> क  आ@क ,1। 7. From a plain reading of Clauses 15(4) and 16, it is clear that these provisions apply to cases where there is no major member in the family eligible for compassionate appointment. In such situations, the 5 limitation for submitting an application is three years, extendable up to a maximum period of five years where approval of the State Government will be necessary. However, the present case does not fall within the ambit of Clause 16. The petitioner had submitted his application well within the prescribed time-limit, and therefore, treating his case as one falling under Clause 16 of the Circular is wholly misconceived and reflects non-application of mind. Such a view cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages however, his seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of his appointment without any break in service.” 7. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and the submission of counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in term of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaichand Sarthi (Supra). The order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post on which he was earlier working. It is also clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled for back-wages, however, his seniority shall be counted from the date of his initial appointment. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.01.29 11:48:17 +0530